. . .when this reader sees what’s going on overseas:
What seems harsh to me here is the fact that the average Scotch worker would be precluded from being able to afford private health care, because they could not afford to contribute both their tax dollars to the “National Health Service” and their remaining earnings to a private plan. The article states that the “National Health Service” is spending the available money for the benefit of the majority and that the cancer victims more or less have to be sacrificed (my own choice of words) for the good of all.It amazes me that nations always seem to find the money for wars, no matter how high the price tag, yet health care is budgeted even if people die because of it. Anyway, this is something going on in Scotland, that we in the US, of course have no control over. But as we ponder the prospects of adopting universal health care in the US, we should at least wonder if we too would end up with a “National Health Service” that too would play God.
Related posts:
- Do we almost have universal health care already?
- Health care equality is an oxymoron
- That’s one way to cut health care costs
- Does nationalized care increase life expectancy?
- Single-payer: Forcing health care down people’s throats?
- Canadian health care: At the expense of defense?
- Calling health care a right limits opposition and crushes dissent
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 17 comments }
I suggest before they pass judgement on government healthcare plans, that they look in depth at ALL countries who provide such plans.
You can’t make an informed decision by looking at one bad example in one country.
For a relatively general overview of different countries’ plans, go here:
http://www.grahamazon.com/sp/
Of course, that’s just one site, and there’a a wealth of information in other places.
One thing that got me about the post is the statement that Scots are denied a treatment that is available to all Americans. That should be appended to “all Americans who can afford it”.
“That should be appended to “all Americans who can afford it”.”
Please point out a news article or data indicating the number of people in the US denied cancer treatment because they can’t “afford it”.
National defense is a constitutionally mandated duty of the Federal government. Unjustly enriching the provider class solely due to their oligopoly market position is not.
National defense is a constitutionally mandated duty of the Federal government. Unjustly enriching the consumer class solely due to their ability to rule by tyranny of the majority, is not. Nor is it the Federal government’s job to ensure the continued enrichment of the parasitic classes in society such as lawyers and other deadbeats.
Here’s an article as requested
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/27/IN135224.DTL
I don’t need articles on who can’t afford their chemo meds. How about yesterday when my 73 y/o female patient complained she couldn’t afford the Tamoxifen and Arimidex required for her metastatic breast cancer.
These folks don’t make statistics they just quietly go without.
Anytime the government takes your money to purchase your needs for you, instead of you doing so directly, you lose freedom, everytime, without fail.
America is based on the courage and faith of the people to accept freedom and the risks and resonsibilities that it entails. People die for freedom all the time. It is worth it. If you don’t think so, if you want to surrender your freedom and that of your neighbor to be taken care of like some kind of cattle, then go to another country.
It doesn’t matter what Europe does. This is the un-Europe. People came here for something different. As for the Americans who want European style paternalism, they are not worthy of their ancestors and should get out.
Simply living in any kind of organized society makes you lose freedom.
If you want total freedom, I suggest you move to a remote area of the amazon and that way you won’t have to put up with government, with rules, with other people, namely with civilization.
You’ll have no means to make money, you’ll live in constant fear of death, there will be no infrastructure, no services for you when you’re old and sick…but hey, at least you’ll have total freedom right?
When are you going to stop feeling absolutely entitled to all the freedom you want, without giving anything back to the society that enables that freedom?
“Here’s an article as requested
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/27/IN135224.“
Just a pumped up sob story. Sorry to burst your bubble. They should have paid their cobra in light of the fact she had metastatic breast cancer. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we need to protect people from their own ill conceived decisions. Unfortunately the Left has brainwashed us all into believing that we should not be held accountable for our own actions…
“When are you going to stop feeling absolutely entitled to all the freedom you want, without giving anything back to the society that enables that freedom?”
How about you Lefties stop spitting on our soldiers and sign up for a couple in Iraq. May grow some hair on your chest.
Freedom is not an entitlement. It is an unalienable right. Learn the difference. Failing to do so will result in selling your rights for a mess of potage.
“Total freedom” is anarchy and no one here is advocating that. We formed a government to prevent anarchy. We limited it to preserve liberty.
We granted specific enumerated powers to the federal government in order to secure our liberties. Taking care of personal health care expenses and eliminating my freedom to take personal financial risks were not among the enumerated powers given to the federal government. Per the 10th amendment of the bill of rights, they are therefore prohibited from doing so. When they do, they are enfringing on my rights (not my entitlements).
I don’t give anything to “society”. I give a lot to people. I also have a lot confiscated from me in the name of “society” for the personal benefit of other people. Conservatives favor the former, collectivist leftists the latter. Conservatives tend to give more to charity than liberals, so why are you lecturing someone on “giving back” because they have conservative views?
Having money confiscated by the government to meet someone elses “need” is not “giving”, it is getting looted. There is no rational reason why someone elses need creates my obligation. There may be religious reasons, but those can only be fullfilled by voluntary giving, not robbing the nonconsenting.
Let us just get government out of the whole mess. This includes the market oligopoly position given to the providers via licensing and scope of practice limitations. Let us also remove the government (i.e. tax payer) funding for the large portion of training and remove all restrictions on the opening of new schools. You guys wouldn’t last in an open and free market. The last time allopathic medicine had to compete in an open and free market it couldn’t even hold its own against homeopathy.
” “Here’s an article as requested
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/04/27/IN135224.“
Just a pumped up sob story. Sorry to burst your bubble. They should have paid their cobra in light of the fact she had metastatic breast cancer. “
Haha, you obviously didn’t read the whole article, just the first few paragraphs.
Of course freedom is not an entitlement.
“Anytime the government takes your money to purchase your needs for you, instead of you doing so directly, you lose freedom, everytime, without fail.”
I was simply responding to this naive claim. I was making the point that the amount of freedom you want or feel you deserve has no place in a civilization. It has no basis in real life. You can’t have as much freedom as you seem to want, and live in a functioning society. Yet you still feel you should have it. You’ve either got to pick to live in anarchy, or accept that some of your freedoms will be limited.
danielle:
I stand by the claim, because it is true.
You don’t lose all freedom, but you will lose freedom in that area of your life that the government is taking care of you in.
All I am asking here is the freedom as a physician to sell my services to my patients on terms mutually agreeable to us rather than outside compusion or intrusion, the freedom as a patient to purchase care on terms mutually agreeable to my physician and I rather than with outside compulsion or intrusion, and the freedom as a working citizen to spend the surplus product of my personal labor on the healthcare needs of others in amounts and for persons of my own choosing.
Is that degree of freedom is incompatible with civilized order, then what do you call all of history prior to 1965?
First of all, it seems as if you have a mixed-up idea of what government supported healthcare would be. You make it all sound so very 1984.
Everything you just mentioned that you want in healthcare is absolutely possible under government funded systems. Unless you don’t accept any insurance and your patients pay cash, then the only difference is that instead of sending your bill to the insurance company, you send it to the government. It’s possible that a little bit more of your tax dollars would be going to fund coverage for all your citizens, but maybe not considering the amount that gets wasted in emergency departments by people with no primary coverage in the first place.
Second, I respect your opinion that you don’t want to pay for other people’s health coverage. I’m really not looking to debate that issue. The more pressing problem I have with your post is your utter disdain for government. There are a million services the government provides that everyone pays for, and that you no doubt take full advantage of.
danielle:
You are falling into the bloggers trap of reading into the text what isn’t there. I don’t have utter disdain for government–just overwheening usurpatious government.
BTW, I don’t take insurance and my patients pay cash. I have no contract with insurance companies and provide them no services so I send them no bills. The patients who chose to see me on those terms are people who like me want their healthcare to be a private matter provided by someone whose sole obligation is to them and they are willing to pay for that. There is no reason why we shouldn’t be left alone to do that.
Well I apologize then. I guess it was the “lose freedom everytime”, “like some sort of cattle”, and “European paternalism” quotes in reference to government that made me think that.
I’m sure under some sort of government plan that would be implemented in the U.S. you’d be perfectly free to only deal with patients who wanted to pay cash.
Comments on this entry are closed.